components of high performing teams - bruce h. jacksontheiahe.com/documents/common factors of high...

High Performance Teams 1

Running head: COMMON FACTORS OF HIGH PERFORMANCE TEAMS

Common Factors of High Performance Teams

Bruce Jackson

Susan R. Madsen (Primary Contact)

Utah Valley State College

10/24/05

800 West University Parkway, Mailcode 119

Orem, Utah 84058-5999

Phone: (801) 863-6176

Fax: (801) 863-7218

[email protected]

[email protected]

Keywords: Teams, High Performance Teams, Groups

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Abstract

Utilization of work teams is now wide spread in all types of organizations throughout the world.

However, an understanding of the important factors common to high performance teams is rare.

The purpose of this content analysis is to explore the literature and propose findings related to

high performance teams. These include definition and types, goals, talent, skills, performance

ethics, incentives and motivation, efficacy, leadership, conflict, communication, power and

empowerment, norms and standards, and values.



Organizations continue to utilize team structures because of increasing competition and

technological changes (Chen & Klimoski, 2003). Given this movement towards more team-

based organizational development, both researchers and practitioners have been eager to develop

methods to enhance team performance within a variety of team settings and at lightening speed

(Brown, 2003). According to Larson and LaFasto (1989):

For several decades now social scientists have been urging us to confront a sad paradox

in our collective evolution…On the one hand, we possess the technical competence,

physical resources, and intellectual capacity to satisfy all the basic needs of

mankind…On the other hand, we seem to lack the essential ability to work together

effectively to solve critical problems. (p. 13)

Even with these concerns, organizations of all kinds (e.g., corporate, non-profit, government) are

designing and implementing work teams for the purpose of making the decisions and plans that

managers had once been tasked. In fact, Cohen and Bailey (1997) found that organizations with

more than 100 employees utilized team structures nearly 82 percent of the time and that team

structures have produced significant results for the organizations that have utilized them

(Daniels, 1998; Hoerr & Pollack, 1986; Kirkman & Rosen, 2000; Shulman, 1996).

According to Katzenbach and Smith (1993) there are four reasons that teams work: 1)

individuals coming together bring complimentary skills and experience that exceed any

individual; 2) teams support real-time problem solving and are more flexible and responsive to

changing demands with greater speed, accuracy, and awareness than individuals; 3) teams

provide a unique social dimension that enhances the economic and administrative aspects of

work; and 4) teams have more fun (p. 18). Shulman (1996) and Katzenbach and Smith (1993)


hypothesized that individuals, as compared to teams, are no longer able to deal with the

complexities and pressures that are best solved using team structures that require multiple skills,

judgments, and experiences.

Interestingly, although teams have been studied for the past few decades, a consensus has

not been reached on the specific high performance practices that make up effective teams for

organizations in general (Gephard, 1995). The literature, however, has provided some clues. For

example, according to a DDI (Development Dimensions International) study, of the 39 practices

studied, team-building skills and self-managed worked teams appeared as the most valuable

competency (Daniels, 1998). In another DDI study, high performing organizations continue to

rate effective teamwork as one of the top 10 competencies needed to compete in the global

market place (Bernthall, Dalesio, & Wellings, 1997). Generally speaking, Guzzo and Dickson

(1996) stated, “Ample evidence indicates that team-based forms or organizing often brings about

higher levels of organizational effectiveness in comparison with traditional, bureaucratic forms”

(p. 330). In addition, Jehn and Mannix (2001) purported that teams help increase organizational

efficiency, flexibility, and performance.

With so many organizations utilizing work groups and teams, it is important to

investigate the factors or components of high performing teams. However, it is important to note

that because most teams are unique in their goals and focus, there is no “off the shelf” solution

for all teams (Davenport, 2001) and that “there is no singular, uniform measure of performance

effectiveness for groups” (Guzzo and Dickson, 1996. p. 309). Shulman (1996) explained that

while there seems to be a shared understanding of what makes and effective work group, the

“results across studies are inconsistent,” primarily because the field is “badly fragmented” (p.

358). Further, Rainey (1991) found that “so many kinds of groups operate under so many


different conditions that researchers strain to understand all the variations” (p. 185). Even with

these challenges, an exploration of these high performance factors can be beneficial.

Purpose and Design

The purpose of this literature review was to explore the literature related to high

performing teams and formulate implications to human resource development (HRD) theory and

practice. The following questions were investigated: 1) What are theoretical frameworks used to

understand high performing teams? 2) What are some of the characteristics, features, or

attributes of effectively functioning teams? and 3) What findings can assist practitioners in

assessing, designing, developing, implementing, and/or evaluating team-related interventions?

While no team is identical, the constructs addressed in this paper represent many of the core

components that seem to permeate most, if not all, of the team literature reviewed. This review is

a content analysis of scholarly literature located in various business (e.g., ABI, General

BusinessFile ASAP) and psychology databases (i.e., PsycINFO, Expanded Academic Index).

The key words used for the search included: team, team-building, teamwork, high performance

teams, and work groups. Among the numerous articles and books located and reviewed, the ones

most applicable to the topic were subjectively chosen for this review.

Findings and Discussion

Theoretical Frameworks

According to Bell (1982), a lack of methodological consistency, in addition to the

diversity of groups studied, has made it difficult to generalize the phases of team development;

however, in studying the stages of development, while three-stage and other types of models

have been proposed (Bell, 1982), Tuckman’s (1965) model has become most prevalent in the

current literature. In this seminal work, Tuckman describes a four-stage model that includes


forming, storming, norming, and performing. Since Tuckman’s original work, numerous scholars

and practitioners have used and modified his model and/or re-defined stage definitions. Carter

(2001) reviewed Cufaude’s simplification of this team development process. Through this

refinement of the Tuckman model, Cufaude re-defined these four stages in a useful framework.

1. Forming: Individuals are trying to get to know each other and the organization. A

commitment to the team effort has not yet been formed. Leaders provide direction and

outline expectations.

2. Storming: In this rocky stage, team members may challenge the leader and each other.

The leader coaches members on how to manage conflict and focus on goals.

3. Norming: After individuals have worked through conflicts, things start to gel. People

appreciate their differences and work together. The leader now serves as a facilitator,

offering encouragement and guidance.

4. Performing: The team is fully functional, able to manage their relationships, and work

toward shared goals. Team members feel accepted and communicate openly with the

leader. The leader focuses on delegating responsibilities and identifying when the team is

moving into a different stage.

On the other hand, Katzenbach and Smith (1993) described a five-stage movement to

becoming a high performance team. Stage one is defined as simply the “working group.” While

the “working group” does achieve a certain level of results, their performance is well below high

performance. In a brief review of these stages, Katzenbach and Smith (1993) described the

“working group” as individuals who come together primarily to share information, best practices,

and perspectives without a real set of group objectives. A second phase, known as the “pseudo

team,” actually reaches an even lower level performance before becoming a “potential team.” A


“pseudo-team” is where a team may have a significant performance need but is not really trying

to achieve it; and where there is no common purpose. This type of team is exemplified as simply

the sum of its whole is less than the individual parts. A “potential team” is a team that is focused

on an incremental performance need and there is a bias for reaching high performance. While

there is not yet group accountability or a working approach, these teams are potential candidates

for reaching the high performance stage. The potential team is followed by a “real team” and

finally by a “high-performance team” (p. 84). A “real team” is a group of individuals who are

equally committed to a common purpose for which they hold each other accountable (Regan,

1999); yet, a “high performance team” is one that satisfies all of the requirements of real teams,

but take their commitment further, deepening their relationships for which individuals sacrifice

deeply for the overall success of each individual on the team as well as the team itself (pp. 91-

92). It is the move to this last stage where individuals must “take risks involving conflict, trust,

interdependence, and hard work” (p. 109).

While these stage models provide a simple outline for the evolution of teams,

investigators think differently about team stages of development. In a further review of the

temporal aspects of team or project development, Shulman (1996) concluded that an important

implication of the many longitudinal studies indicates that the assumed liner and fixed sequence

of group process may have added very little to our understanding of how work groups go about

achieving their objectives (p. 360). On the other hand, Rainey (1991) stated that while group

norms and values do develop, if not through vague and elusive processes, that “patterns of

conformity to certain behaviors and beliefs” (p. 188) do seem to take place. Like other stage-

based opinions, cases can be made on either side about the existence or vagueness of stage

development. At the general level, however, it seems useful to review these stages as they offer


some insights into the nature of group development and seem to be useful overall for

practitioners who seek to understand the nature of group dynamics over time.

Characteristics, Features, or Attributes of Effectively Functioning Teams

An investigation of all the characteristics, features, or attributes of effectively functioning

teams is not possible in this length of paper. Hence, we have focused on presenting our findings

related to the following: definition, purpose and goals, talent, skills, performance ethics,

incentives and motivation, efficacy, leadership, conflict, communication, power and

empowerment, and norms and standards.

Team definition, purpose, and goals. While there are subtle differences in defining what a

team is—some differentiating between work groups and teams (i.e., Katzenbach & Smith, 1993)

while others use these words interchangeably (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996)—most definitions

resemble each other to some degree. Guzzo & Dickson (1996) defined a workgroup as a group

“made up of individuals who see themselves and who are seen by others as a social entity, who

are interdependent because of the tasks they perform as members of a group, who are embedded

in one or more larger social systems, and who perform tasks that affect others (pp. 208-209).

Any number of theorists looking to define teamwork will assert the importance of having a

synergistic social entity that works towards a common goal or goals, often with high

performance teams exemplifying a total commitment to the work as well as a total commitment

to each other (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993).

Katzenback and Smith (1993) stated, “Common sense suggests that teams cannot succeed

without a shared purpose” (p. 2). While this may be an obvious statement, teams often form (or

are developed) without a clear direction or meaning even though many researchers (e.g., Weiss,

2002) have explained that employees are inclined to do better when they know how to do their


jobs and why they are doing them. Teams that seek higher levels of performance should ensure

that each member understands and supports the true meaning and value of the team’s mission

and vision. Clarifying the purpose in this manner, tied to each individual’s roles and

responsibilities, is a major contributor for tapping into team potential.

No teams arise without performance challenges (Katzenbach & Smith. 1993) and clear,

elevating goals (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). As such, it is essential for any performance team to

have compelling short and long-term goals that excite and challenge the individuals as well as

the team. According to Knight, Durham, & Locke (2001) in a computer simulation study, teams

with difficult goals achieved the highest level of performance while taking more strategic risk in

order to obtain their goals. Team performance was also positively affected by goal difficulty,

team efficacy (positively influenced by teams’ goals for both the individuals and the team),

strategic risk, and tactical implementation (Knight & Durham, 2001). In building high

performance teams, Regan (1999) explained that teams should be given the impossible goal

because such a goal, greater than any one person can handle, ushers in the need for team

resources and builds a compelling challenge. Also, such challenges facilitate inter-dependent

behavior, which, according to Gully, Incalcaterra, Hoshi & Beaublen (2002), increases the

collective efficacy of the team. While the word impossible is rarely used in the literature, the idea

of stretch goals are often used to raise the bar and increase the challenge necessary to motivate

groups or teams towards their given purpose (Katzenbach & Smith. 1993).

Talent, skills, and ethics. High performance teams must begin by recruiting and

maintaining their best talent, while helping non-value-added members relocate their talents to

more appropriate venues. By recruiting, maintaining, and cultivating high talent, morale

increases as performance increases (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). This is consistent with the work of


Buckingham and Coffman (1999) who asserted that internal resources, rather than being spent on

lower performing individuals, should be spent on the high performance to help them achieve

more. Thus, while selection and training is critical for cultivating contributing team members,

teams must constantly monitor their talent pool to insure that each person’s talents and gifts meet

the needs of the team. Larson and LaFasto (1989) described two additional features that must

accompany talent. These include a strong desire to contribute and the capability of collaborating

effectively. Thus, “when strong technical skills are combined with a desire to contribute and an

ability to be collaborative, the observable outcome is an elevated sense of confidence among

team members” (p. 71).

In building high performance teams, after selecting for talent (Katzenbach & Smith,

1993), a proper complement of skills are in order. These skills must meet the challenges afforded

to each team (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). It must be emphasized that technical skill building will

not insure a high performance team. Instead, individuals must have the proper balance of

technical skills, problem-solving and decision-making skills, and interpersonal skills in order to

work with one another most effectively. This later category, interpersonal skills, include risk

taking, helpful criticism, objectivity, active listening, giving the benefit of the doubt, support,

and recognizing the interests and achievements of others.

While building teams, an overall commitment needs to be made around performance

ethic (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). This ethic builds into the organization (and teams) the

overarching philosophy of high performance results. Instead of looking towards the next

organizational fad, building an expectation of performance that permeates the organization

through organizational leaders and the individual workers is essential in today’s business

environment. This ethic and expectation must then be supported by organizational leaders and


followers (Chen, Klimoski, 2003) who, while exercising candor and mutual respect, hold

themselves and their organizations relentlessly accountable at both the individual and team level

(Katzenbach & Smith. 1993).

Incentives, motivation, and efficacy. While teams are organized around a purpose, they

must provide an opportunity for individual members to be rewarded for their efforts. These

rewards come in the form both monetary and non-monetary systems that encourage exemplary

behaviors that lead to high performance. In their study, Knight, Durham, and Lock (2001) found

that incentives had a positive impact on tactical implementation and this, in turn, positively

affected performance. In looking at incentives, it is important to look at intrinsic as well as

extrinsic motivators, and in some settings, the degree to which team leaders have control over the

dispensing of incentives (Koppenhaver and Shrader, 2003).

There are many historic and theoretical models of motivation that can be used to better

understand employee, even team performance. However, incentives that re-enforce behaviors are

often used to facilitate team motivation (Steers, Mowday & Shapiro, 2004). Weiss (2002) and

others have shown that rewards come in many forms, a powerful form of which includes public

or private recognition. When looking at raising the level of team performance, managers and

leaders would benefit from looking beyond remunerative strategies to taking a closer look at the

intangible benefits and intrinsic motives. The research indicates that, over the long-term, intrinsic

motivation taps into deeper levels of energy and commitment than external sources of motivation

(Deci, 1972). In his seminal work on “flow,” Csikszentmihalyi (1990) described “autotelic”

experiences as those participated in for their own sake. These kinds of activities are seen to be so

enjoyable in and of themselves that individuals will participate in them because of the value they

provide intrinsically. As such, exponential levels of performance can take place when employees


begin to find personal satisfaction in their work, or when the work itself is motivating (Weiss,

2002). According to Katzenbach and Smith (1993), when small groups of people challenge

themselves in something that begins to interest them, “their respective titles, perks, and other

‘stripes’ fade into the background” (p. 54). Hence, while external motivators are still effective

and necessary to improve individual and team performance, finding ways to motivate team

members intrinsically may have potentially greater positive results.

More than any one thing, believing in one’s self, organization, and team is critical for

reaching high performance levels (Brown, 2003). Katzenbach and Smith (1993) stated that

leaders of high performing teams “simply need to believe in their purpose and their people” (p.

138). In addition, an individual team member must also believe in his or her ability to do a job

well. A sense of self-efficacy combined with small victories and positive feedback assists in the

development of team efficacy. Knight, Durham, and Locke (2001) found efficacy was strongly

connected to performance. In essence, individuals and teams with higher degrees of efficacy

appear to believe in their skills more and thus are more apt to take larger strategic risks in order

to achieve their goals (Brown, 2003). However, they offer an important caution; individuals with

too much efficacy can develop an overconfidence that can lead to unnecessary mistakes.

Leadership. High performing leaders usually accompany high performance teams. High

performing teams have leaders who, when times are certain and peaceful, are able to take a

proactive stance and help the team stay ahead. In fact, Reagan (1991) encouraged team leaders to

create a sense of distress and urgency so as not to be confronted by external crises. Regan

purported that essential leadership qualities include the following: 1) having a vision—meaning

one should see the crisis before it happens and act upon it; 2) convincing the opinion leaders of

the importance of the goals at hand; 3) organizing quantitative goals; 4) being persistent in


asking for the goals to be met; 5) endurance testing—whereby leaders must remain steadfast

amongst team members trying to test the leaders commitment; 6) the ability to induce creativity

once goals are set; and 7) staying out of the team’s way. Larson and LaFasto (1989) found that

effective team leaders establish a vision for the future, create change, and unleash the energy of

contributing members. Additionally, they found that effective leaders were driven by guiding

principles, where, in essence, “the leaders managed the principles, and the principles managed

the team (p. 124). Katzenbach and Smith (1993) cited six elements necessary for good team

leadership. First, team leaders must keep the purpose, goals, and approach relevant and

meaningful. Second, leaders should continue to build commitment and confidence. Third, team

leaders insure that their members are always enhancing their skills—skills that include technical,

problem solving, decision-making, interpersonal, and teamwork skills. Fourth, effective team

leaders are skillful at managing relationships from the outside, with a focus on removing

obstacles that get in the way of team performance. Fifth, they provide opportunities for others

and are the last to seek credit. And sixth, team leaders don’t shy away from getting in the

trenches and doing the real work. While the authors contend that most individuals can develop

effective skills to be a team leader, they suggest these components as a guideline for success.

In yet another concise summary of leadership qualities, De Vries (1999) provided a

concise summary of qualities important to team leadership:

Effective team leaders avoid secrecy of any kind at all costs. They treat members of the

team with respect, listen to feedback and ask questions, address problems, and display

tolerance and flexibility. They offer guidance and structure, facilitating task

accomplishment, and they provide a focus for action. They encourage dialogue and

interaction among the participants, balancing appropriate levels of participation to ensure


that all points of view are explored (and withholding the possible swaying of opinion).

They capitalize on the differences among group members when those differences can

further the common good of the group. They give praise and recognition for individual

and group efforts, and they celebrate success. They accept ownership for the decisions of

the team and keep their focus sharp through follow-up. By acting in these ways, they

create an atmosphere of growth and learning. In the process, they encourage group

members to evaluate their own progress and development. (pp. 74-75)

While differences in leadership qualities and practices are discussed in all of the cited

summaries, it appears that there is some agreement regarding the finding that effective team

leaders essentially focus on purpose, goals, relationships, and an unwavering commitment to the

results that benefit the organization as well as each individual. These qualities and focus are

similar in the study of transformational leaders who have the ability to influence team

performance through these and other key factors including building empowered team

environments and facilitating functional team conflict (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, and

Spangler, 2004). All said, building effective teams is a balancing act—a balance between rules

and creativity, one’s own needs and the needs of the group, and between direction from the top

and decision-making at the front-lines.

Conflict and communication. Conflict is an essential part of becoming a high

performance team (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). There are many relational contexts for conflict

including the following: individual (i.e., role conflict), between people, within and between

groups, organizational departments, and such. Other aspects of conflict are equally diverse and

include culture, values, goals, structures, tasks and functions, process, authority and leadership


processes, environmental pressures, demographics, and individual personalities (Jehn &

Chatman, 2000; Rainey, 1991, p. 196).

In looking at stages of conflict, Rainey (1991) mentions several phases: 1) latent conflict

where the conditions for conflict are set; 2) perceived conflict where people begin to sense it; 3)

felt conflict where people begin to feel its presence; 4) manifest conflict which includes out and

out warfare; and 5) conflict aftermath where some solutions and alternatives begin to play out.

When looking at these stages of conflict, Rainey discussed several ways people respond. These

include avoidance, ignoring or withdrawing; accommodation, where cooperation and

concessions are made; compromise, involving an equal exchange of concessions; competing,

trying to outdo the other party; and collaboration, trying to meet the needs of each side. While

conflict can be very damaging to a group’s performance and must be carefully balanced,

“research shows that well managed conflict, especially task conflict (Jehn & Chatman 2000)

often improves decision making in organizations (Rainey, 1991, p. 195).

In a study specifically researching the process of conflict, Jehn and Mannix (2001) found

certain conflict patterns with high performing teams to be most prevalent. In a longitudinal study,

teams that performed best experienced certain patterns of conflict. These patterns included low

but increasing levels of task conflict (Jehn & Chatman, 2000) as a project progressed; low but

rising levels of relationship conflict as teams got close to deadlines; and increased levels of task

conflict at the midpoint of projects. According to Jehn and Mannix (2001), the members with an

ideal conflict profile had pre-established value systems, high levels of trust and respect, and open

discussion norms around conflict during the middle stages of their interaction, thus ushering in

new perspectives and paradigms which served the overall goals of the team. Additionally,

conflict in general was lower for high performing groups and higher for low performing groups,


thus supporting the idea that generalized process, task, and relationship conflict possibly came

from the crisis the low performing teams were in at the deadline of a project.

While high performing teams experience certain types of healthy conflict, and while they

are said to be good communicators, the research indicated that different types of communication,

even different levels of perceptions of the amount of conflict (Jehn & Chatman, 2000) can have

different types of effects. Rainey (1991) explained that varying types of communication

strategies have been studied (e.g., circle patterns, chain patterns, wheel patterns). Different

communication strategies appear to yield different results (including satisfaction) amongst those

who participated, suggesting that the best forms of communication are dependent upon the work

group and their goals and objectives. Open communication in high performing teams means a

focus on coaching instead of directing (Regan, 1991). The value of coaching has emerged over

the past several years as a process for helping individuals think for themselves. Coaching is seen

as a facilitative process where team leaders or members help facilitate the process of self and

group discovery. By utilizing coaching more frequently, individuals become less dependent and

more able to take greater levels of responsibility.

Communication problems or distortions are also important to understand. Gordon (1990)

depicted four types of miscommunication in general: 1) lack of feedback; 2) noise in

communication such that the original message is distorted; 3) misuse of language such that

words are used, which inflame, distort, or otherwise makes vague the information being

communicated; and 4) listening deficiencies. For public bureaus, Gortner, Mahler, and Nicholson

(1987) added others: distorted perceptions—often caused by pre-conceived ideas or from striving

to save self-esteem; erroneous translations; errors of abstraction and differentiation—again

where individuals misinterpret the information or when information is selectively understood or


distorted; lack of congruence or an inconsistency between different parts of the message; a

distrusted source; jargon, which promotes communication difficulties because of highly,

specialized language; and manipulating and withholding important information (adapted from

Rainey, 1991, p. 194). While there are any number of communication problems and solutions, a

key to team performance is maintaining open lines of communication, even Verbal Self-

Guidance (VSG) strategies to enhance team efficacy and performance (Brown, 2003). As

summarized by Weiss (2002), “When you keep channels of communication open, you provide

motivation, maintain interest and promote cooperation” (p. 4).

Power & empowerment. The issue of power is highly dependent upon the type of high

performance team in question. While most organizations now support egalitarian practices and

shared decision-making that leads to greater buy-in, satisfaction, and ultimately performance,

there remain organizations that have depended upon complete hierarchical control (i.e.,

traditional military teams). While many support the hierarchical integrity of military commend

structures, there may still be room to empower, even those in uniform. It was once said by

General George S. Patton “Never tell your soldiers how to do a job. Tell them the results you

want, and they will surprise you with their ingenuity” (Regan, 1999). In corporate or many other

settings, however, empowered work teams are seen as a key to high performance. Empowering

teams have proved useful for many organizations as they increase ownership, provide an

opportunity for developing new skills, increase the overall interest in projects, and otherwise

facilitate decision-making where the work is being done. In a review of his model for generating

sustained workforce performance, Pfeffer (1998) supported several practices, among them the

implementation of self-managed teams and the decentralization or decision making, such that a

larger part of the organization can accept more accountability and a greater appreciation for how


one’s work affects the work of others. To integrate the possible continuum above, Peters and

Waterman (1982) discussed the principle of parallel “loose-tight” properties, such that specific

boundaries are constructed with enough room in between the boundaries for individuals to make

empowered choices.

In looking at what constitutes a highly empowered work team, Kirkman and Rosen

(2000) described four key elements: 1) a sense of potency which translates into a sense of team

efficacy, the derivative of which are closely knit relationships and supportive behaviors; 2) a

sense of meaningfulness that connects the individuals to the mission of the group (this includes

an intrinsic caring about the tasks—“Teams high on the meaningfulness dimension of

empowerment, individually and collectively, experience ordinary tasks in a extra-ordinary way”

(p. 50); 3) highly empowered teams experience a sense of autonomy, discretion, and control; and

4) empowered teams gain a sense of the impact of their mission (seeing the end results of their

work). Feedback from both internal and external clients provides the data necessary to judge

impact (for a comprehensive list of team empowerment levers see Kirkman and Rosen, 2000, p.

56). When looking at leader behaviors that are associated with high levels of team

empowerment, Kirkham & Rosen (2000) mentioned generating high team expectations, setting

an environment where team members set their own goals and control their work, staying out of

the way of team members problems, displaying trust in the abilities of the team members, and

holding teams responsible for their actions.

Norms and Standards. Like rules that govern group behavior, norms can be helpful in

assisting team development and performance. For example, Jehn and Mannix (2001) proposed

that high performance teams build “open discussion” norms in order to promote task conflict—a

type of conflict associated with high performance teams. Other norms of high performance teams


include high levels of respect among members and a cohesive and supportive team environment.

Any number of norms may exist for a given team, but high performing teams use norms in

general to help govern behavior. In addition to having team norms, teams also benefit from

organizing their team standards. As asserted by Larson and LaFasto (1989), “openly articulated

or haphazardly applied, standards define those relevant and very intricate expectations that

eventually determine the level of performance a team deems acceptable” (p. 95). Standards

change the nature of performance by setting the bar at a new level—a level that is clearly

defined. Such was the case when Roger Bannister broke the 4:00 minute mile—a seemingly

impossible goal at the time—only to be met and exceeded by several other runners within just a

few months.

Clear performance standards are essential to high performing teams. Such standards

provides a system of accountability which also feeds into the performance ethic (Katzenbach &

Smith, 1993), an ethic that support results for customers, employees, and shareholders,

recognizing that each are of critical importance and must be balanced with great care and

consideration. Driving standards are certain pressures. These pressures include the individual’s

performance expectations, team pressure to perform, team leader pressure, the consequences of

success or failure, and other external pressures (e.g., the larger organization, the crowd) that

compel one to excel (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). According to Larson and LaFasto (1989),

“people with high standards are those people who do ordinary things in an extraordinary way”

(p. 100). When helping people reach the extraordinary, it is important to remember that setting

standards must be a flexible process. Larson and LaFasto also provided three common features

of developing standards of excellence: 1) setting standards that include a variety of variables,

variables that include individual commitment, motivation, self-esteem, and performance; 2)


mutual accountability; and 3) a dedication to reviewing and reworking standards to keep them

fresh and valuable for the team.

Recommendations

The results of this analysis suggest recommendations for practitioners. Many

organizational leaders do not put resources toward efforts (often training and education related)

to develop high performance teams. Many assign individuals to participate in teams and expect

high performance. This, of course, is a wishful course of action. The literature supports the

premise that well-functioning teams can out perform individuals or other groups. Leaders,

managers, and HRD professionals need to be educated about the relationship between

productivity/performance (the bottom line) and high performing team efforts (including the

workplace, psychological, and behavioral correlates that influence them). Overall, interventions

based around these relationships should be considered. We also recommend that members of

current teams (management or non-management) review this and other articles summarizing

high performance factors so that they can understand team dynamics and how they can help

improve performance.

Organizational leaders who put forth resources (e.g., time, educational opportunities, and

money), team-building/teamwork training and development described will see the benefits,

particularly if connections are made between team performance and performance/productivity

increases. As always, initiatives that have direct or indirect effects on the productivity of our

human resources (employees) can also assist in promoting organizational competitiveness in the

market place.

Conclusions and Implications


Understanding the various components of high performing teams (definition, purpose,

and goals; talent, skills, and ethics; incentives, motivation, and efficacy; leadership; conflict and

communication; power and empowerment; and norms and standards) can be helpful in creating

and developing these types of teams in organizations today. Teams have been found to offer not

only increased organizational performance, but also an increase in team member satisfaction

(Hoerr & Pollock, 1986), helping members to become more valuable in the process (Katzenbach

& Smith. 1993). Groups have an advantage over individuals because of the availability of new

ideas, talent, and viewpoints. Group decision making also promotes more understanding,

acceptance, and a clearer perspective of why something is taking place (Rainey, 1991). Effective

teams learn to think for themselves (Regan, 1999) and, therefore, move decision-making to the

front lines where it is often needed. While taking more time at first, its value improves efficiency

over time. It is through this process of collective excellence that individuals become more than

the “sum of their parts” and learn to work together towards goals and objectives that provide

tremendous meaning, not only for the organizations who house them, but for the individuals that

sacrifice for them. Taken collectively, Brown (2003) comments that advancing team

performance means systematically developing and assessing new training methods to support

such changes in team effectiveness.

This study offers contributions to the human resource development literature. First, HRD

and organization development interventions often focus on team-building relationships and

nearly always center on group and team work during the design and development phases.

Literature assisting practitioners in acquiring a deeper understanding of high performance teams

can assist them in team work of any type. Second, it supports the premise that developing and

facilitating high performing teams is a complex phenomenon and influential factors need to


continue to be explored for progress in both research and practice. Finally, practitioners can

utilize this information to assist them in assessing and evaluating new and existing programs or

initiatives focused on teams.


References

Bell, M. A. (1982). Phases in group problem-solving. Small Group Behavior, 13, 475-495.

Bernthall, P., Dalesio, R. & Wellins, R. (1997). Global high-performance work practices

executive summary. Bridgeville, PA. DDI.

Brown, T. (2003). The effect of verbal self-guidance training on collective efficacy and team

performance. Personnel Psychology, 13, 935-964.

Buckingham, M. & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the world's greatest

managers do differently. New York, Simon & Schuster.

Carter, H. (April 2001). Go team. American Salon, 124(4), 52.

Chen, G., & Klimoski, R.J. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer performance in

teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment.

Academy of Management Journal. 46(5), 591-607.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research

from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239-290.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. New York, Harper Collins.

Davenport, C. & White, D. (2001). Human factors, operations and high performance teams.

Flying Safety. 57(7).

Daniels, S. (1998). High-performance work practices shown to impact business outcomes.

Quality Progress, 31(6), 10.

De Vries, M. (1999). High performance teams: Lessons from the pygmies. Organizational

Dynamics, 27(3), 66-77.

Deci, E. L. (1972). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 22(1) 112-120.


Dionne, S. D., Yammamarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. (2004). Transformational

leadership and team performance. Journal or Organizational. Change Management,

17(2),177-194.

Gephart, M. (1995). The road to high performance. Training & Development, 49(6), 29-38.

Gordon, J. R. (1990). Management and organizational behavior. Newton, Mass. Allyn & Bacon.

Gortner, H., Mahler, J. & Nicholson. J. (1987). Organizational theory: a public perspective. The

Dorsey Press: Chicago.

Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Hoshi, A., & Beaublen, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-

efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators

of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819-832.

Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on

performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-38.

Hoerr, J., Pollock, M. A., & Whiteside, D. (1986). Management discovers the human side of

automation. Business Week, September, 70-75.

Jehn, K. A., & Chatman, J. A. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict

composition on team performance. The International Journal of Conflict Management.

11(1), 56-73.

Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of

intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2),

238-251.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance

organization. New York, Harper Business.


Kippenhaver, G. D. & Shrader, C.B. (2003). Structuring the classroom for performance:

cooperative learning with instructor-assigned teams. Decision Sciences Journal of

Innovative Education, 1(1), 1-21.

Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B (2000). Powering up teams. Organizational Dynamics, 23(3), 48-66.

Knight, D., Durham, C. & Locke, E. (2001). The relationship of team goals, incentives, and

efficacy to strategic risk, tactical implementation, and performance. Academy of

Management Journal, 44(2), 326-338.

Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: what must go right, what can go wrong.

Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

Peters, T., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence. New York, Harper & Row

Publishers.

Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

Rainey, H. G. (1991). Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Regan, M. D. (1999). The journey to teams: A practical step-by-step implementation plan. New

York, Holden Press.

Shulman, A. D. (1996). Putting group information technology in its place: communication and

good work group performance (pp. 257-361). Handbook of organization studies. S. R.

Clegg, C. Hardy and W. R. Nord. London, Sage Publications.

Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Shapiro, D. T. (2004). The future of work motivation theory.

Academy of Management Review, 29(3): 379-287.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6),

384-399.


Weiss, W. H. (2002). Organizing for quality, productivity and job satisfaction. SuperVision,

63(2), 13.

components of high performing teams - bruce h. jacksontheiahe.com/documents/common factors of high...

Documents